We are doing science for policy

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission's science and knowledge service which employs scientists to carry out research in order to provide independent scientific advice and support to EU policy.

In this section, you can learn more about the JRC's role, how it is structured, its resources and the people that make it work. You'll also find contact details and information about where we are located across the EU.

Research

Our scientific work supports a whole host of EU policies in a variety of areas from agriculture and food security, to environment and climate change, as well as nuclear safety and security and innovation and growth.

Our research topics give a deeper insight into that support of EU policy, while you can also discover the unique laboratories and facilities where our scientists work.

News & Events

Our news gives you an insight into our support of EU policy and highlights the scientific research carried out everyday within the European Commission.

You can also sign up for our monthly newsletter for all the latest information directly to your inbox and check out our events for opportunities to participate. Or check out our photos and videos for an instant look at the world of science at the European Commission.

European TTO circle A network of the Technology Transfer offices of the largest public research organisations in Europe

Sharing scientific knowledge across boundaries

Our communities bring together individuals interested in sharing scientific knowledge and experiences and to exchange ideas and learning, with the aim to better serve and inform EU policy and the citizen.

Each community is governed individually and membership requests are dealt with by the moderator. Some areas are restricted.

Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method and application

Abstract:

From an environmental perspective, the durability of products is generally seen to be a positive and desirable goal, especially from the point of view of waste management. However, the extension of the lifetime of energy-using products is not necessarily the optimal strategy, as the efficiency of products generally decreases with wear and tear, and their substitution by more energy-efficient products can be more environmentally beneficial in the long run. There is currently no standardised approach to resolving this conflict, although various approaches have been illustrated in the literature based on different perspectives. The present article describes an original method for environmentally assessing the durability of energy-using products in order to identify if and to what extent the potential extension of the product’s lifetime could have life-cycle benefits. The method is based on the comparison, within a life-cycle perspective, of two scenarios of different lifetimes of a target product and its potential substitution with (one or more) better performing alternatives. The method considers some key parameters of durability, including the average lifetime of the product(s), the annual energy consumption, the impacts of lifetime extension (e.g. through repair) and the environmental performance of the replacement product. A general index and a simplified index have been derived from the method. The applicability and relevance of the simplified durability index is shown in two case studies (of washing machines). The results of the assessment can be used for ecodesign purposes by manufacturers (e.g. for the identification of technical design options for extending the lifetime of products) or by policy makers (e.g. in setting requirements for product policies). The applicability and robustness of the method are discussed, including potential limitations (e.g. allocation of co-products/co-services, variability of impacts on manufacturing or end-of-life), difficulties (e.g. for products with short technological cycles), and possible improvement (e.g. the impacts of repair on extending the lifetime, the effects of different usages). The two case study applications of the method show that some life-cycle environmental benefits can be gained by extending the lifetime of the products, even if it would delay their replacement with more energy-efficient products. However, the benefits and their relevance are variable, mostly depending on the selected impact category, the extension of the lifetime, the impact of repair, and the efficiency of the replacement product.